4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Responses to sugar and sugar receptor gene expression in different social roles of the honeybee (Apis mellifera)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 106, 期 -, 页码 65-70

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2017.09.009

关键词

Taste; Gustation; Proboscis extension response; Division of labor; Fructose; Sucrose

资金

  1. German Research Foundation - Germany [SCHE 1573/8-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are well-known for their sophisticated division of labor with each bee performing sequentially a series of social tasks. Colony organization is largely based on age-dependent division of labor. While bees perform several tasks inside the hive such as caring for brood (nursing), cleaning or sealing brood cells or producing honey, older bees leave to colony to collect pollen (proteins) and nectar (carbohydrates) as foragers. The most pronounced behavioral transition occurs when nurse bees become foragers. For both social roles, the detection and evaluation of sugars is decisive for optimal task performance. Nurse bees rely on their gustatory senses to prepare brood food, while foragers evaluate a nectar source before starting to collect food from it. To test whether social organization is related to differential sensing of sugars we compared the taste of nurse bees and foragers for different sugars. Searching for molecular correlates for differences in sugar perception, we further quantified expression of gustatory receptor genes in both behavioral groups. Our results demonstrate that nurse bees and foragers perceive and evaluate different sugars differently. Both groups, however, prefer sucrose over fructose. At least part of the taste differences between social roles could be related to a differential expression of taste receptors in the antennae and brain. Our results suggest that differential expression of sugar receptor genes might be involved in regulating division of labor through nutrition related signaling pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据